Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:01:32 06/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 14, 2000 at 06:56:27, Christophe Theron wrote: >On June 14, 2000 at 05:32:16, Alessandro Damiani wrote: >>On June 13, 2000 at 23:18:54, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>On June 13, 2000 at 16:53:39, Eugene Nalimov wrote: >>>>Combine two approaches -- 0x88 and 10x12. Use 12x16 board, and access board by >>>> board[0x20+square] >>>>(In C/C++ you can define macro for that). >>>> >>>>Than in each case you can use more appropriate of 2 methods. >>> >>> >>>Well actually Eugene it is what I do already. Sorry, I should have stated this >>>more clearly in my post. I don't use 12x12 or 10x12. I use 16x16 (actually I >>>just need 16x12). >>> >>>I don't even need to add 0x20... That's why I think 16x12 is more efficient than >>>0x88, and this comes from close examination of what a typical chess program does >>>most of the time. >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>The next step are bitboards. >> >>Alessandro > > >How many of the top programs actually use bitboards? My guess is that of those programs which are for sale, none of them do. The reason I guess this, is that the programs have been under development for a long time. They probably started out with one of the representations before bitboards. To change over to bitboards would require some tangible benefit. Since for 32 bit processors, the change is negligible, I strongly suspect that none of the professional programs have done this. However, once the 64 bit processors become mainstream, I expect all of them to make the transition at some point.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.